Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

$400,000,000?! How the hell does the government rack up such huge expenses on every damn thing??
1 posted on 01/24/2011 7:44:25 PM PST by Slippery Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-25 last
To: Slippery Jim

Slippery? As in KY “personal lubricant”?


43 posted on 01/25/2011 8:20:33 AM PST by Fresh Wind (TOTUS knows how to give a speech. Obama knows how to read.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Slippery Jim
Unmentioned is what the cost would be to give medical treatment to HIV+ gay soldiers.

The expenses incurred by keeping gays in the military is likely to be at least an order of magnitude higher than the cost of discharging them. The solution would be to expend greater efforts to not recruit them in the first place.

44 posted on 01/25/2011 8:22:54 AM PST by PapaBear3625 ("It is only when we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything" -- Fight Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Slippery Jim

I was wondering when some troll would post this propaganda...


45 posted on 01/25/2011 12:34:43 PM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Slippery Jim

It will cost a lot more to repeal. Also I’m sure that these costs are inflated. If you do some searching you you will find that the GAO has been steadily increasing these costs also they don’t adjust for those troops that don’t require replacements which is bogus anyway since the armed forces is consistently training new recruits. If this is the standard for costs then why not give us the cost for discharging any and all troops for whatever reason? The reason they don’t is that discharges under DADT is a very small percentage of total discharges and the vast majority of discharges are a result not merely from discovering sexual orientation but in conjunction with unwanted advances etc. It is a red herring designed like a magician’s trick to get you to focus on one thing while ignoring the magician’s slight of hand. The cost to eject slightly overweight recruits I’m sure is much more expensive since homosexuals are such a small percentage of the military. Right now for example the air-force is in the process of cutting 6000 airmen so gay airmen caught having indiscriminate anal sex placing them and their fellow soldiers at risk of serious sexual disease plus placing tax payers at risk of financing long term care for the spectrum of sexual diseases including AIDs which such individuals are at a high risk of getting. It had been estimated that the long term potential cost to the military related to HIV & AIDs could be billions of dollars. I think that is what I dislike the most about these phony numbers games. If we are going to take estimates that inflate the costs of discharging homosexuals many of whom were discovered because of accosting their bunk-mates in the middle of the night or being found frequenting gay clubs taking part in high risk behavior then it should also be considered the costs related to dealing with the cost of open homosexuality in the military something which the media both conservative and otherwise are too cowardly to address.


47 posted on 01/27/2011 3:51:43 PM PST by Maelstorm (Better to keep your enemy in your sights than in your camp expecting him to guard your back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Slippery Jim

About 60 percent of the new HIV infections in the military are from homosexual contact. The military up to this point had a lower incidence of HIV than the general population. I expect that to change as the lavender brigade takes over. The British experience is that the homos setup little butt bang clans which often includes the initiation of new recruits that they believe can be forced into submission. Lesbians have a history of being aggressive too often targeting straight girls. That’s our new military.

http://www.thebody.com/content/whatis/art18774.html


48 posted on 01/27/2011 4:07:07 PM PST by Maelstorm (Better to keep your enemy in your sights than in your camp expecting him to guard your back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-25 last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson